Building Floor Author
Thomas M. Murray joined Virginia American Society for Engineering
Vibrations Polytechnic Institute in 1987 after
17 years with the University of Ok-
lahoma, the last year of which was
spent as a distinguished visiting
professor at the United States Air
Force Academy. He taught pre-
viously at the University of Omaha
and the University of Kansas. After
receiving his bachelor of science
degree from Iowa State University
in 1962, he was employed as an
engineer trainee with Pittsburgh-
Des Moines Steel Company, Des
Moines, Iowa. While studying for a
master of science degree at Lehigh
University in 1966, Dr. Murray was
employed during the summer
months by the Bethlehem Steel
Corporation in their erection and
bridge engineering departments.
In 1970, after earning a Ph. D. in
Thomas M. Murray engineering mechanics at the
University of Kansas, Dr. Murray
joined the University of Oklahoma's
school of civil engineering and en-
vironmental science as an assis-
tant professor. He became a full
professor ten years later.
A specialist in structural steel
research and design, Dr. Murray
was responsible for the construc-
tion of large laboratories at both the
University of Oklahoma and Vir-
ginia Polytechnic Institute. His re-
search and teaching interests
include serviceability of floor sys-
tems, pre-engineered building
design, light gage design, and the
use of micro-computers and expert
systems in structural engineering.
A registered structural engineer
and professional engineer, he has
been a consultant to numerous
state and national government
agencies, industrial corporations
and engineering firms.
Dr. Murray has contributed
numerous articles to research pub-
lications and presented papers at
many national and international
conferences. He has been a prin-
cipal investigator in over 40 spon-
sored research projects. His
professional affiliations include
membership in the American
19-1
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Society of Civil Engineers, the
Education, The Structural Stability
Research Council, and the Re-
search Council on Structural Con-
nections. He has served on
several national committees in the
American Society of Civil En-
gineers, and is a member of the
American Institute of Steel Con-
struction, which presented him with
a special citation for contributions
to the art of steel construction in
1979. Dr. Murray is also a member
of both the American Institute of
Steel Construction and the
American Iron and Steel Institutes'
specification committees.
Summary
Annoying floor motion induced by
building occupants is probably the
most persistent floor serviceability
problem encountered by desig-
ners. If the response of a floor sys-
tem from normal activities is such
that occupants are uneasy or an-
noyed, the intended use of the
building can be radically affected.
Correcting such situations is usual-
ly very difficult and expensive, and
success has been limited.
A number of procedures have
been developed by researchers
which allow a structural designer to
analytically determine occupant
acceptability of a proposed floor
system. Generally, the analytical
procedures require the calculation
of the first natural frequency of the
floor system and either maximum
amplitude, velocity or acceleration
for a reference excitation. An es-
timate of the damping in the floor
system is also required in some
instances. A human perception
scale is then used to determine if
the floor system meets service-
ability requirements.
The purpose of this paper is to
present the North American state-
of-the-art for controlling annoying
floor movement in residential, of-
fice, commercial and gymnasium
type environments.
 BUILDING FLOOR VIBRATIONS
Thomas M. Murray
Montague-Betts Professor of Structural Steel Design
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

INTRODUCTION
Annoying floor motion induced by building occupants is probably the most
persistent floor serviceability problem encountered by designers. According to Allen and
Rainer [1975], Tredgold in 1828 wrote that girders over long spans should be "made deep
to avoid the inconvenience of not being able to move on the floor without shaking
everything in the room". If the response of a floor system from normal activities is such
that occupants are uneasy or annoyed, the intended use of the building can be radically
affected. Correcting such situations is usually very difficult and expensive, and success has
been limited.
A number of procedures have been developed by researchers which allow a
structural designer to analytically determine occupant acceptability of a proposed floor
system. Generally, the analytical procedures require the calculation of the first natural
frequency of the floor system and either maximum amplitude, velocity, or acceleration for a
reference excitation. An estimate of the damping in the floor system is also required in
some instances. A human perceptibility scale is then used to determine if the floor system
meets serviceability requirements.
The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of analytical tools and concepts
for controlling annoying floor movement in residential, office, commercial, and gymnasium
type environments.

OVERVIEW OF NORTH AMERICAN DESIGN PROCEDURES

Murray [1975, 1981, 1985] has developed an analytical procedure to determine the
acceptability of proposed floor systems supporting residential or office-type environments.
The procedure utilizes a human response scale which was developed using field
measurements taken on approximately 100 floor systems. The scale relates occupant
acceptability of floor motion to three parameters: first natural frequency, amplitude, and
damping. The amplitude is the maximum displacement of the floor system due to a
reference heel-drop excitation. Guidelines for estimating damping in the system are
provided as part of the procedure. The procedure is widely used and no instances of
unacceptable performance of floor systems which satisfy the criterion have been reported.
The Canadian Standards Association provides a design procedure to ensure
satisfactory performance of floor systems in Appendix G, Canadian Standards Association
[1984]. This procedure includes a human response scale based on the work of Allen and
Rainer [1976]. The scale was developed using test data from 42 long-span floor systems.
The data for each test floor includes initial amplitude from a heel-drop impact, frequency,
damping ratio, and subjective evaluation by occupants or researchers. The procedure
requires the calculation of peak acceleration, first natural frequency, an estimate of system
damping, and evaluation using the human response scale. Apparently, as part of a
Canadian Standards Association Specification, this procedure must be followed in all
Canadian building designs.

19-3
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 To provide sufficient static stiffness against floor motions during walking,
Ellingwood and Tallin [1984] have suggested a stiffness criterion of 1 mm due to a
concentrated load of 1 kN be used. The criterion is recommended by them for floors used
for normal human occupancy (e.g., residential, office, school), particularly for light
residential floors. This criterion does not include damping, which many researchers believe
to be the most important parameter in controlling transient vibrations. In addition, no test
data are presented to substantiate the criterion. Since the criterion is relatively new,
acceptance by structural designers and performance of floor systems so designed is
unknown at this time.
Allen, Rainer and Pernica [1985] and Allen [1990, 1990a] published criteria for the
acceptability of vibration of floor systems that are subjected to rhythmic activities such as
dancing and jumping exercises. Values for dynamic load parameters and acceleration
limits are suggested for various activities. Using the suggested values, a set of minimum
natural frequencies for different occupancies and floor constructions are recommended.
For dance floors and gymnasia, the recommended minimum frequencies are 7, 9, and 11 hz
for solid concrete, steel joist-concrete slab, and wood supported structures, respectively.
In the following section, specific recommendations, based on the writer's
experience, are made for floor serviceability design. Three types of occupancy are
considered: (1) residential and office environments, (2) commercial environments, and (3)
gymnasium environments.

RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA

Residential and Office Environments. Ellingwood et al. [1986] is a critical appraisal
of structural serviceability. The criteria developed by Murray [1981] and by Ellingwood
and Tallin [1984] with modifications are recommended for controlling objectionable floor
vibrations due to walking. Because of this recommendation and the wide use of the writer's
criterion, the former procedure is recommended for floor motion control in office and
residential environments.
In these environments, the forcing function is intermittent movement of a few
occupants. Movement of groups does not generally occur and thus the floor motion is
transient (e.g., motion occurs because of a short duration impact and decays with time). As
a result, the most important parameter for residential and office environments is damping.
The recommended criterion [Murray 1981] states that if the following inequality is
satisfied, motion of the floor system caused by normal human activity in office or
residential environments will not be objectionable to the occupants:
D > 35 AOf + 2.5 (1)
where D = damping in percent of critical, A O = maximum initial amplitude of the floor
system due to a heel-drop excitation (in.), and f = first natural frequency of the floor
system (hz). The heel-drop excitation used to develop the criterion can be approximated
by a linear decreasing ramp function having a magnitude of 600 lbs and a duration of 50
milliseconds. The criterion was developed using field measurements of approximately 100
floor systems mostly in the frequency range of 5-8 hz. Use of the criterion for floor systems
with a first natural frequency above about 10 hz is not recommended. Detailed calculation
procedures and an example are given in the Appendix.

19-4
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Use of this criterion requires careful judgement on the part of the designer. A
typical office building floor system with hung ceiling and minimal mechanical ductwork
exhibits about 3% of critical damping. Additional damping may be provided by office
furniture, partitions, equipment and the occupants themselves. If the required damping
(right hand side of Inequality 1) is less than 3-3.5%, the system will be satisfactory even if
the supported areas are completely free of fixed partitions. If the required damping is
between 3.5% and about 4.5%, the designer must carefully consider the final configuration
of the environment and the intended use. For instance, if fixed partitions will not be
present, the environment is quiet, and the required damping is 4%, complaints may be
received once the building is occupied. If the required damping is much greater than 4.5%,
the designer must be able to identify an exact source of damping or artificially provide
additional damping to be sure the floor system will be satisfactory. If this cannot be
accomplished, redesign is necessary.
Framed in-place partitions (sheetrock on wood or metal studs) are very effective
sources of additional damping if (1) each partition is attached to the floor system in at least
three locations and (2) they are located within the effective beam spacing or the effective
floor width which is used to calculate system amplitude [Murray 1975, Galambos, undated].
The direction of the partitions with respect to the supporting member span does not affect
the damping provided. Partitions are equally effective if they are attached below the slab
as compared to directly on the floor slab.
If partitions are not part of the architectural plan, either above or below the floor
area under investigation, the designer may consider methods to artificially increase
damping. If sufficient space exists between the ceiling and the underside of the floor slab,
"false" sheetrock partitions of maximum possible depth might be installed in this space.
This approach is relatively inexpensive and can provide damping equivalent to a similarly
constructed handrail for a pedestrian bridge or crossover. From unreported laboratory
tests conducted by the writer, an increase in damping of 0.5% to 1% can be achieved if the
"partitions" are 2-3 feet deep.
Attempts to artificially increase damping in a floor system have been periodically
reported in the literature. The use of dashpot dampers was shown to be successful in labo-
ratory tests [Lenzen 1966], but successful installation in actual buildings has not been
reported. Viscoelastic material has been attached to the bottom flanges of beams in an
existing department store building where the floor motion was annoying to shoppers. The
effort was reported to be only marginally successful [Nelson 1968]. Additional experiments
with these materials have not been reported. The use of viscoelastic materials to increase
damping is very expensive, typically over $5 per square foot of floor area.
Although not strictly a method to increase system damping, the installation of a
second mass system below the floor slab, in theory at least, has the same effect. Laboratory
experiments have been reported [Allen and Pernica 1984], but the writer is unaware of any
successful field installations. Allen [1990] states that "tuned dampers have so far not been
very successful".
Damping devices, dashpots, friction dampers, viscoelastic materials, and second
mass systems all require relative movement between the floor system and the device
support. Because a vertical floor motion amplitude of only 0.040-0.050 in. can be very
annoying to humans, the problem of developing a device which can effectively dampen
floor motion is difficult. However, work is currently in progress at Virginia Polytechnic

19-5
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Institute and State University on the development of methods to artificially increase floor
system damping.
Concerning frequency, the designer must be aware of very low first natural frequen-
cies (below about 3 hz) to avoid walking resonance. Further, it is well known from auto-
mobile and aircraft comfort studies that humans react adversely to frequencies in the 5-8 hz
range [Hanes 1970]. The explanation for this phenomenon is that the natural frequencies
of internal human organs (heart, kidneys, liver, and bladder) are in the 5-8 hz range. Con-
sequently, when the human body is subjected to such motion, resonance occurs and
annoyance is the result. The writer has investigated over 50 problem floors (none of which
satisfied Inequality 1) and, in the vast majority of the cases, the measured first natural
frequency of the floor system was between 5 and 8 hz. The writer can state that he has
never encountered an annoying residential/office floor where the span was greater than 40
feet, which is contrary to the common belief that long span floors vibrate and should be
avoided. Furthermore, an office/residential floor with a natural frequency greater than 10
hz has never been found to be a problem.
In calculating natural frequency, the transformed moment of inertia is to be used, as
long as the slab (or deck) rests on the supporting member. This assumption is to be
applied even if the slab is not structurally connected to the beam flange or joist chord, since
the magnitudes of the impacts are not sufficient to overcome the friction force between the
elements. For the case of a girder supporting joists, it has been found that the joist seats
are sufficiently stiff to transfer the shear, and the transformed moment of inertia
assumption is to be used for the girder. If only the beam moment of inertia is used, a lower
frequency results, but the system will actually vibrate at a much higher frequency and, thus,
an evaluation using Inequality 1 may be inaccurate.
If the supporting member is separated from the slab (for example, the case of over-
hanging beams which pass over a supporting girder), the performance of the floor system
can be improved if shear connection is made between the slab and supporting girder.
Generally, two to four short pieces of the overhanging beam section, placed with their webs
in the plane of the web of the girder and attached to both the slab and girder, provide
sufficient shear connection.
Annoying vibration of office floors occurs when the floor system is lightly loaded;
thus a careful estimate of the supported load must be made. Only the actual dead loads
should be included plus 10% to 25% of the design live loads. Annoying vibrations have not
been reported when the floor system is supporting the full design live load. One should
note that an increase in supported load results in a decrease in frequency, which in turn
results in a lower required damping.
In some instances, the beams or joists and the supporting girders will vibrate as a
unit. This phenomenon usually occurs when the supporting girders are flexible relative to
the beams or joists or when overhanging beams are supported by girders. In these
instances the system frequency can be approximated from

(2)

where f s = system frequency, f b = beam or joist frequency, and f g = girder frequency, all
in hz.

19-6
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Commercial Environments. In commercial environments, such as shopping centers,
the forcing function can be nearly continuous walking or running movement of the
occupants. In this situation, damping is not as critical as for office/residential
environments because the floor movement is approximately steady-state. Control of the
stiffness of the structural system is the best solution.
The criterion suggested by Ellingwood et al. [1986] is recommended for commercial
floor design. This criterion is based on an acceleration tolerance limit of 0.005 g and
walking excitation. The criterion is satisfied if the maximum deflection under a 450 lbs.
(2 kN) force applied anywhere on the floor system does not exceed 0.02 in. (0.5 mm).
Because the maximum deflections caused by occupant movements are so small, the
floor system will act as if composite construction was used even if structural connection is
not provided between the floor slab and the beam. Thus, the transformed moment of
inertia should be used when calculating the stiffness of a proposed design.
Although it is doubtful that the floor system which satisfies this criterion will have a
very low natural frequency, the possibility of walking resonance must also be checked. First
harmonic resonance will occur below 3 hz and second harmonic resonance between 5 and 6
hz. It is recommended that the first natural frequency of the floor system be above 8 hz for
commercial environments. The guidelines given in the above subsection and in the
Appendix for calculation of frequency and effective floor width of residential/office floors
can be used for commercial floors.
Gymnasium Environments. For floor systems supporting dancing or exercise
activities, damping is usually not of consequence. The forcing function for these activities
generally results in steady-state response and resonance must be avoided. Accompanying
music for aerobic exercising usually does not exceed 150 beats per minute. The resulting
forcing frequency is then about 2.5 hz. Allen and Rainer [1976] suggest that the first
natural frequency of floors supporting such activities be above 7-9 hz to avoid resonance
with the first and second harmonics of the forcing function.
More recently, Allen [1990a] has presented specific guidelines for the design of floor
systems supporting aerobic activities. He recommends that such floor systems be designed
so that

(3)

with f O = first natural frequency of the floor structure (hz), f i = ith multiple of f (hz),
i = harmonic of jumping frequency (i = 1,2,3), f = jumping frequency (hz),
aO/g = acceleration limit, = dynamic load factor for the harmonic of the loading
function, wp = equivalent uniformly distributed load of participants (psf), and
w t = equivalent uniformly distributed floor weight (psf). (The reader is referred to the
referenced paper for more details.) Application of Inequality 3 generally results in a
required natural frequency greater than 9-10 hz.
To avoid complaints of undesirable motion of floors supporting exercise activities,
the following is recommended: (1) provide structural framing so that the first natural
frequency satisfies Inequality 3, generally above 9-10 hz; (2) isolate the floor system from
the remaining structure using separate columns; (3) separate ceilings and partitions

19-7
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
immediately below the exercise floor by supporting the ceiling on its own framing and by
not extending partitions to the floor above; and (4) accept the possibility of complaints
from non-participating individuals who happen to be on the exercise floor during significant
activity by medium-to-large groups (20-60 participants). (It is also recommended that
sound insulation be provided between the exercise floor and the ceiling below.) Obviously,
only recommendations 3 and 4 are economically feasible once construction is complete.
Structural framing with sufficient stiffness to meet the 9-10 hz criterion can be very
expensive, as frequency is proportional to the square root of moment of inertia. The most
economical systems result from the use of deep beams or joists and lightweight concrete
slabs (a decrease in mass increases frequency). The guidelines given above for calculating
frequencies of floor-supporting residential/office activities apply for gymnasium floors.

SPECIAL SITUATIONS
Pedestrian Bridges. Pedestrian footbridges or crossovers require particular
attention because damping is usually less than 2.5-3% and resonance with walking impacts
can occur. (Recall that the average walking frequency of a human is approximately 2 hz.)
If only casual pedestrian traffic is anticipated (for instance, a crossover in a hotel atrium), it
is recommended that Inequality (1) be used as the design criterion. For this case, the
damping exhibited by the completed structure should be assumed to be less than 3% of
critical. If heavy traffic is anticipated (for instance, a footbridge at a sports arena exit), the
structure should be designed so that the first natural frequency exceeds 7-9 hz to avoid
walking resonance.
The designer of footbridges is cautioned to pay particular attention to the location
of the concrete slab. The writer is aware of a situation where the designer apparently "eye-
balled" his design based on previous experience with floor systems. Unfortunately, the
concrete slab was located between the beams (because of clearance considerations) and
the footbridge vibrated at a much lower frequency and at a larger amplitude than
anticipated because of the reduced transformed moment of inertia. The result was a very
unhappy owner and an expensive retrofit.
Motion Transverse to Supporting Members. Occasionally, a floor system will be
judged particularly annoying because of motion transverse to the supporting beams or
joists. In these situations, when the floor is impacted at one location, there is the
perception that a wave moves from the impact location in a direction transverse to the
supporting members. The writer has observed this phenomenon and felt the "wave"
50-70 ft. (15-20 m) from the impact location perhaps up to 1 second after the impact. In
at least one instance the "wave" was felt to hit the exterior wall and return almost to the
impact location. This phenomenon occurs when the building is rectangular, the floor is
free of fixed partitions, and all beams are equally spaced and of the same stiffness,
including those at column lines. The resulting motion is very annoying to occupants
because the floor moves without apparent reason (the cause is not within sight or hearing).
However, a simple remedy is available. The "cure" is to periodically (say every third bay)
change one beam spacing or one beam stiffness. The result is that the "wave" simply stops
at this location.

EXAMPLES
The following examples illustrate some of the concepts discussed.

19-8
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
EXAMPLES
Ex. 1 Check the typical interior bay shown for susceptibility to vibration. The floor
supports office space. (See Appendix for definition of terms.)
3-1/2 in. lightweight (110 pcf, n = 14) concrete slab
2 in. metal deck (concrete in deck + deck = 9.1 psf)
Composite construction; hung ceiling; little ductwork

BEAM

19-9
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Supported weight = Slab + Deck + Beam + Actual Mechanical (4 psf)
+ Actual Ceiling (2 psf) + 20% Live Load (10 psf)

W = (4.5/12)(110)(10.0)+35 + (4 + 2+10)(10.0)]36.0
= 21,870 lbs.

From Table 1, DLF = 0.75

Required Damping = 35 AOf + 2.5 = 35(0.0077)(5.26) + 2.5 = 3.9%

GIRDER W24x55 A = 16.20 in.2 Ix = 1350 in4

As above, with an assumed effective slab width = 10 ft., It = 4000 in.4

Supported weight = 2x21,870 + 30x55 = 45,390 lbs

Required damping = 35(0.0049)(7.22) + 2.5 = 3.7%

19-10
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
SYSTEM

fs = 4.25 hz

Aos = Aob + Aog/2 = 0.0077 + 0.0049/2 = 0.0102 in.

Required Damping = 35(0.0102)(4.25) + 2.5 = 4.0%

EVALUATION
f,hz AO, in. Required Damping, %
Beam 5.26 0.0077 3.9
Girder 7.22 0.0049 3.7
System 4.25 0.0102 4.0
Since the required damping is approximately 4%, the system is judged to be satisfactory
unless the office environment is very quiet or sensitive equipment is being operated.
Because the girder frequency is greater than the beam frequency, the system will probably
vibrate at the beam frequency, 5.26 hz, rather than the system frequency, 4.25 hz.

Ex. 2. Evaluate the framing plan of Ex. 1 if used in the public areas of a shopping center.
Applying the criterion that the deflection caused by a 450 lbs. force does not exceed 0.02 in.
[Ellingwood et al. 1986]:

However, the natural frequency of the system is estimated to be 5.2 hz, which is
considerably less than the recommended minimum value of 8 hz. Redesign is necessary.

19-11
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
REFERENCES
Allen, D. E. [1990]. "Building vibrations from human activities," Concrete International:
Design and Construction. American Concrete Institute, 12(6), 66-73.
Allen, D. E. [1990a]. "Floor vibrations from aerobics," Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering. 17(5), 771-779.
Allen, D. E. and G. Pernica. [1984]. "A simple absorber for walking vibrations." Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering. 11, 112-117.
Allen, D. E. and J. H. Rainer [1975]. "Floor vibration", Canadian Building Digest. Division
of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, September.
Allen, D. E. and J. H. Rainer [1976]. "Vibration criteria for long-span floors", Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering. 3(2), 165-173.
Allen, D. E., J. H. Rainer and G. Pernica. [1985]. "Vibration criteria for assembly
occupancies." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 12(3), 617-623.
Canadian Standards Association [1984]. Steel Structures for Buildings (Limit States
Design). Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada.
Ellingwood, B., et al. [1986]. "Structural serviceability: a critical appraisal and research
needs," Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, 112(12), 2646-2664.
Ellingwood, B. and A. Tallin [1984]. "Structural serviceability - floor vibrations", Journal of
Structural Engineering. ASCE, 110(2), 401-418.
Galambos, T. V. (Undated). "Vibration of steel joist concrete slab floor systems."
Technical Digest No. 5. Steel Joist Institute, Arlington, VA.
Hanes, R. M. [1970]. "Human sensitivity to whole-body vibration in urban transportation
systems: a literature review." Applied Physics Laboratory, The John Hopkins University,
Silver Springs, MD.
Lenzen, K. H. [1966]. "Vibration of steel joist-concrete slab floors." Engineering Journal,
AISC, 3(3) 133-136.
Murray, T. M. [1975]. "Design to prevent floor vibrations." Engineering Journal. AISC,
12(3), 82-87.
Murray, T. M. [1981]. "Acceptability criterion for occupant-induced floor vibrations."
Engineering Journal. AISC, 18(2), 62-70.
Murray, T. M. [1985]. "Building floor vibrations", Papers. Third Conference on Steel
Developments, Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Melbourne, Australia, 145-149.
Nelson, F. C. [1968]. "The use of visco-elastic material to dampen vibrations in buildings
and large structures." Engineering Journal. AISC, 5(2), 72-78.
Tredgold, T. [1828]. "Elementary Principles of Carpentry, Second Edition," Publisher
unknown.

19-12
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 APPENDIX
GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATION OF PARAMETERS

DAMPING
Damping in a completed floor system can be estimated from the following ranges:
Bare Floor: 1-3%
Lower limit for thin slab of lightweight concrete;
upper limit for thick slab of normal weight concrete.
Ceiling: 1-3%
Lower limit for hung ceiling; upper limit for sheetrock on furring attached to
beams or joists.
Ductwork and Mechanical: 1-10%
Depends on amount and attachment.
Partitions: 10-20%
If attached to the floor system and not spaced more than every five floor
beams or the effective joist floor width.
Note: The above values are based on observation only.

FREQUENCY
Beam or girder frequency can be estimated from

(A.1)

where
f = first natural frequency, hz.
K = 1.57 for simply supported beams
= 0.56 for cantilevered beams
= from Figure 1 for overhanging beams

19-13
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 g = acceleration of gravity, in./sec./sec.
E = modulus of elasticity, psi
= transformed moment of inertia of the tee-beam model, Figure 2, in.4
W = total weight supported by the tee-beam, dead load plus 10-25% of design
live load, lbs.
L = tee-beam span, in.

System frequency is estimated using

where
= system frequency, hz
= beam or joist frequency, hz
= girder frequency, hz

AMPLITUDE FROM A HEEL-DROP IMPACT

(A.2)

where
= initial amplitude of the floor system due to a heel drop impact, in.
= initial amplitude of a single tee-beam due to a heel drop impact, in.
= number of effective tee-beams

(A.3)
where
= maximum dynamic load factor, Table 1
= static deflection caused by a 600 lbs. force, in.
See [Murray 1975] for equations for and

19-14
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
For girders,
For beams:
1. S < 2.5 ft., usual steel joist - concrete slab floor systems.

(A.4)
where
x = distance from the center joist to the joist under consideration, in.
xo = distance from the center joist to the edge of the effective floor, in.
= 1.06
L = joist span, in.
= (Dx/Dy)0.25
Dx = flexural stiffness perpendicular to the joists

Dy = flexural stiffness parallel to the joists

= EIt/S
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, psi
E = modulus of elasticity of steel, psi
t = slab thickness, in.
It = transformed moment of inertia of the tee-beam, in.4
S = joist spacing, in.

2. S > 2.5 ft., usual steel beam - concrete slab floor systems.

(A.5)

19-15
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 where E is defined above and
S = beam spacing, in.
d e = effective slab depth, in.
L = beam span, in.
Limitations:

The amplitude of a two-way system can be estimated from

A o s = Aob + A o g /2
where
Aos = system amplitude
Aob = Aot for beam
A og = A o t for girder

19-16
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Figure 1. Frequency Coefficients for Overhanging Beams

Figure 2. Tee-beam Model for Computing Transformed Moment of Inertia

19-17
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Table 1. Dynamic Load Factors for Heel-Drop Impact

f, Hz DLF F, Hz DLF F, Hz DLF

1.00 0.1541 5.50 0.7819 10.00 1.1770

1.10 0.1695 5.60 0.7937 10.10 1.1831
1.20 0.1847 5.70 0.8053 10.20 1.1891
1.30 0.2000 5.80 0.8168 10.30 1.1949
1.40 0.2152 5.90 0.8282 10.40 1.2007
1.50 0.2304 6.00 0.8394 10.50 1.2065
1.60 0.2456 6.10 0.8505 10.60 1.2121
1.70 0.2607 6.20 0.8615 10.70 1.2177
1.80 0.2758 6.30 0.8723 10.80 1.2231
1.90 0.2908 6.40 0.8830 10.90 1.2285
2.00 0.3058 6.50 0.8936 11.00 1.2339
2.10 0.3207 6.60 0.9040 11.10 1.2391
2.20 0.3356 6.70 0.9143 11.20 1.2443
2.30 0.3504 6.80 0.9244 11.30 1.2494
2.40 0.3651 6.90 0.9344 11.40 1.2545
2.50 0.3798 7.00 0.9443 11.50 1.2594
2.60 0.3945 7.10 0.9540 11.60 1.2643
2.70 0.4091 7.20 0.9635 11.70 1.2692
2.80 0.4236 7.30 0.9729 11.80 1.2740
2.90 0.4380 7.40 0.9821 11.90 1.2787
3.00 0.4524 7.50 0.9912 12.00 1.2834
3.10 0.4667 7.60 1.0002 12.10 1.2879
3.20 0.4809 7.70 1.0090 12.20 1.2925
3.30 0.4950 7.80 1.0176 12.30 1.2970
3.40 0.5091 7.90 1.0261 12.40 1.3014
3.50 0.5231 8.00 1.0345 12.50 1.3058
3.60 0.5369 8.10 1.0428 12.60 1.3101
3.70 0.5507 8.20 1.0509 12.70 1.3143
3.80 0.5645 8.30 1.0588 12.80 1.3185
3.90 0.5781 8.40 1.0667 12.90 1.3227
4.00 0.5916 8.50 1.0744 13.00 1.3268
4.10 0.6050 8.60 1.0820 13.10 1.3308
4.20 0.6184 8.70 1.0895 13.20 1.3348
4.30 0.6316 8.80 1.0969 13.30 1.3388
4.40 0.6448 8.90 1.1041 13.40 1.3427
4.50 0.6578 9.00 1.1113 13.50 1.3466
4.60 0.6707 9.10 1.1183 13.60 1.3504
4.70 0.6835 9.20 1.1252 13.70 1.3541
4.80 0.6962 9.30 1.1321 13.80 1.3579
4.90 0.7088 9.40 1.1388 13.90 1.3615
5.00 0.7213 9.50 1.1434 14.00 1.3652
5.01 0.7337 9.60 1.1519 14.10 1.3688
5.20 0.7459 9.70 1.1583 14.20 1.3723
5.30 0.7580 9.80 1.1647 14.30 1.3758
5.40 0.7700 9.90 1.1709 14.40 1.3793

19-18
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.